In a time of undeniably destructive partisan fracturing in the United States, there’s at least one thing that Americans have consistently agreed upon for decades. For nearly seventy years, majorities of Americans have told pollsters that the Electoral College should be nixed.

For nearly seventy years, majorities of Americans have told pollsters that the Electoral College should be nixed.

The consensus cuts across party lines: Gallup finds “supermajority support” to get rid of it “among the young and the old, the highly and not-so-highly educated, and Republicans as well as Democrats.” In a national poll of US voters in 2013, more than six in ten Americans favored abolishing the Electoral College (63 percent overall), including 61 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents, and 66 percent of Democrats.

It’s a rough gauge, but of 38 available statewide polls I looked at, taken in states across the US between 2008 and 2015, there’s an average of 74 percent support for a nationwide popular vote for President, with a healthy low of 67 percent and a high of 81.

In 2000 when Democratic candidate Al Gore had won the National Popular Vote over Republican George W. Bush and the Supreme Court ruled that Florida would go to Bush, thereby sealing his election, researchers found that partisanship played an important role in shaping attitudes toward the Electoral College. Gallup found at that time that 75 percent of Democrats said they would “amend the Constitution so that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide wins.” By contrast, 56 percent of Republicans favored keeping the Electoral College, while 41 percent favored replacing it with a popular vote system. A decade later the partisan lines had softened to overall support. In 2011, 62 percent told Gallup they’d swap the Electoral College for a National Popular Vote, including a majority of Republicans, and barely a third said they’d rather keep things as they are.

The Electoral College’s service to the people and the nation is in question.

Of course, everything has changed since Tuesday, November 8th, 2016.

And, though pretty consistent over time, some of the polling on this is old enough now to be stale anyway. Maybe we throw all the old polling out the window and start over. No matter what, it’s hard to say what an election like 2016 does to attitudes. Beyond partisan differences, one analysis immediately following the suspense and strangeness of the Bush/Gore contest, indicated that those with higher levels of political sophistication were more likely to oppose Electoral College reform—or at least appeared to be more easily swayed by opposition arguments.

For each of these surveys, voters were asked “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?” or a similar question. Except for California, the surveys were conducted by Public Policy Polling, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

Alaska

A survey of 800 Alaska voters conducted on January 27-28, 2010 showed 70 overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Support for a National Popular Vote was 66 percent among Republicans, 78 percent among Democrats, 70 percent among Nonpartisan voters, 82 percent among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69 percent among others.

Support was 78 percent among women and 60 percent among men.

Support was 68 percent among 18-29 year olds, 70 percent among 30-45 year olds, 70 percent among 46-65 year olds, and 70 percent for those older than 65.

California

Like Washington, California has already passed legislation to commit to a National Popular Vote. A Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Assoicates poll of 800 likely voters in California on August 4-7, 2007 found 69 percent overall support for swapping the Electoral College for a National Popular Vote, with 44 percent strong support and 25 percent “somewhat” support. Only 21 percent opposed; 12 percent “strongly.” A majority (58 percent) favored a system in which the candidate who receives the most popular votes over a system where the candidate who wins the most votes in individual Congressional Districts will win the Presidency.

Idaho

A survey of 800 Idaho voters conducted on May 5–6, 2009 showed 77 percent overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

By political affiliation, support for a National Popular Vote was 75 percent among Republicans, 84 percent among Democrats, and 75 percent among others. By gender, support was 84 percent among women and 69 percent among men. By age, support was 84 percent among 18-29 year olds, 70 percent among 30-45 year olds, 75 percent among 46-65 year olds, and 82 percent for those older than 65.

Idaho voters were also asked a three-way question: “Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of the state’s electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?”

13 percent favored the existing statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

Montana

A survey of 842 Montana voters conducted on January 4–5, 2011 showed 72 percent overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Support was 67 percent among Republicans, 80 percent among Democrats, and 70 percent among others.

Support was 80 percent among women and 63 percent among men.

Support was 72 percent among 18-29 year olds, 67 percent among 30-45 year olds, 75 percent among 46-65 year olds, and 73 percent for those older than 65.

Oregon

A survey of 800 Oregon voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 76 percent overall support for a National Popular Vote for President.

Support was 82 percent among Democrats, 70 percent among Republicans, and 72 percent among independents.

Support was 67 percent among 18-29 year olds, 68 percent among 30-45 year olds, 82 percent among 46-65 year olds, and 76 percent for those older than 65.

Support was 81 percent among women and 71 percent among men.

Support was 87 percent among whites (representing 89 percent of respondents), 59 percent among African-Americans (representing 3 percent of respondents), and 80 percent among Hispanics (representing 2 percent of respondents), and 69 percent among Others (representing 6 percent of respondents).

Washington

A survey of 800 Washington state voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 77 percent overall support for a National Popular Vote for President.

Support was 77 percent among independents, 85 percent among Democrats, and 68 percent among Republicans.

Support was 80 percent among 18-29 year olds, 76 percent among 30-45 year olds, 76 percent among 46-65 year olds, and 78 percent for those older than 65.

Support for a National Popular Vote remained steady, at 77 percent overall, in an identical poll fielded in May 2009, after the National Popular Vote Bill was signed by Washington Governor Chris Gregoire. Percentages by subgroups were similar in both polls.

An additional question was asked in the May 2009 poll. Respondents were asked to make a three-way choice among three alternative methods for awarding the state’s electoral votes, with the following results:

73 percent favored a National Popular Vote;

16 percent favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district (as is currently done in Maine and Nebraska); and

11 percent favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

Wyoming

A survey of 1,039 Wyoming voters conducted on January 4–5, 2011 showed 69 percent overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Support was 66 percent among Republicans, 77 percent among Democrats, and 72 percent among others.

Support was 76 percent among women and 62 percent among men. S

Support was 70 percent among 18-29 year olds, 68 percent among 30-45 year olds, 70 percent among 46-65 year olds, and 70 percent for those older than 65.

These high levels of public support for doing away with the Electoral College in favor of direct democracy are encouraging, but again, polling from several years ago—or even a week ago—should be viewed with some caution today. If there’s one thing we know for sure, the political landscape has been altered and is changing day to day. It remains to be seen whether Americans’ experience of the election and the imminent Trump presidency will trigger a newly invigorated conversation about ways of making democracy work better for the people.

Power our brains! We’re a reader-supported nonprofit.

Comments

Pike Oliver

November 18, 2016 at 8:54 am

How we select the president in the USA reflects a shared power relationship among the governments of the individual states. Smaller states will not approve a constitutional amendment to change that method. For more on this see James Coll’s article in City Journal dated November 17, 2016 – http://city-journal.org/html/electoral-college-will-remain-14862.html

Correction: If the National Popular Vote requires electors to vote in proportion to the vote nationally as opposed to in proportion to the vote in their individual state, there may be a question as to the legality of such a requirement. The intent of the presidential vote allocation appears to be one of having each state cast its vote for president as an individual state–not as a reflection of the nation. So, eliminating winner-take-all in each state is fine (and several states have already implemented versions of that), but requiring a state’s electors to vote in proportion to the nationwide vote may be on shakier ground.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

dougvon

November 19, 2016 at 11:28 am

Popular vote in each state wins, that’s difficult to improve on.
Expanding that to national opular vote might seem fairer, I originally thought it to be a no brainer, but it turns out its for those with no brain.
The national popular vote would give the choice for pres completely to those few states with big populations, FL, CA, NY and leave the rest of the nation out in the cold.

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes.
No more handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

A constitutional amendment is only “daunting” if We the People presume the government’s process for Amending—Article Five—is the only exclusive process for Amending. Many of the framers didn’t think so. Contemporary progressive constitutional scholars don’t think so. According to this view, We the People can amend or replace our second Constitution directly by the same precedent that was used for the second in replacing the first one—by the People—by the obvious processes used in other nations and many of our own states. I hope you will examine your presumption of the exclusivity of Article Five.

When discussing the electoral college, I call it a “peculiar institution.” I point out how it makes a Wyoming voter worth over 3-1/2 times a California voter. It really was part of the 1st great slavery compromise, along with valuing slaves at 3/5 of a white man and letting slave owners have that vote. All to help assure the south’s fright at the idea of abolishing slavery. Its one more lingering anti-democratic remnant of slavery.

It is irrelevant (as in totally irrelevant) if you do not “like” the Electoral College. You cannot change the fact that it exists and was in place during the 2016 election. All the griping about the College has been going on for years and it is utterly pointless.

Change the College (abolish it), THEN hold another Election. This would be the only fair way because each State, each Candidate and each Voter would THEN realize that they have to all participate with the aim of the popular vote being the winner. It would be immoral and illegal to do this “post-election”.

Gore would have won – never forget that. And we would not have had Iraq, 9/11 and a whole lot of other crimes. I’m all for abolishing the College, but we also need to abolish lobbyists (all of them) and political contributions from businesses and corporations and foreign entitites. You know – a LAWFUL election process…

Stay up to date on the Northwest's most important sustainability issues.

Research Areas

Founded in 1993, Sightline Institute is committed to making the Northwest a global model of sustainability, with strong communities, a green economy, and a healthy environment. We work to promote smart policy ideas and monitor the region's progress towards sustainability.